R v Har

[2021] QChC 43

CHILDRENS COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v HAR [2021] QChC 43

PARTIES:

R

v

HAR

(defendant)

FILE NO:

116 of 2021

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Childrens Court of Queensland at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

26 May 2021 (delivered ex tempore)

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 May 2021

JUDGE:

Dearden DCJ

ORDER:

I find the defendant guilty of the robbery in company, with personal violence.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – ROBBERY IN COMPANY WITH PERSONAL VIOLENCE – JUDGE ALONE TRIAL – Whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of robbery in company, with personal violence – Whether the offence charged is proved beyond reasonable doubt – Whether the defendant had capacity to know that she ought not do the act the subject of the charge

LEGISLATION:

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) ss. 29, 409, 644

CASES:

R v MMH [2020] QDC 70

COUNSEL:

A Vanenn for the Crown

A Cousen for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown

YFS Legal for the defendant

Introduction

1. The defendant, HAR, is charged with one count of robbery in company with personal violence, in the following terms:

   That on the 19th day of March 2020 at South Brisbane in the State of Queensland, HAR robbed SEJ, and HAR was in company with other persons, and at the time of the robbery HAR used personal violence to SEJ.

2. The defendant pleaded not guilty before me in a judge only trial on 24 May 2021.

Elements  

1. The prosecution must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that:

   1.   The defendant stole something;

   2.   At the time of, or immediately before, or immediately after stealing it, the defendant used or threatened to use actual violence to any person or property. 

2. Any degree of violence is sufficient.

3. Use of violence means that some degree of force is used.

4. The use or threat of violence must be done in order to obtain the thing stolen, or to prevent or overcome resistance to it being stolen. 

5. Being “in company” requires proof that the complainant was confronted by the combined strength of force of two or more persons, including the defendant, or the force of two or more persons, including the defendant, must be used against the complainant.

6. It is not necessary that more than one participant actually strike the victim.  It is sufficient that the defendant and one or more other person or persons be physically present, for the common purpose of robbing the complainant and of physically participating as required. 

7. Personal violence in this context means bodily violence. 

Directions

1. In respect of the principles to be applied in a judge only trial, I refer to and respectfully adopt the exposition of those principles set out by Smith DCJA in R v MMH [2020] QDC 70, [7]-[10], supported by the cases and legislation cited in those paragraphs of his Honour’s judgment.

2. I set out the following further directions, with which I must conduct these proceedings in a judge only trial:

   1.   I must reach my…